Birmingham City Council v D (2016) EWCOP 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:12, 29 August 2016

(1) A parent cannot consent to the confinement (i.e. the objective element of Article 5 deprivation of liberty) of a child who has attained the age of 16. (2) The confinement was imputable to the state despite the accommodation being provided under s20 Children Act 1989, as the local authority had taken a central role; in any event, even if D's confinement were a purely private affair the state would have a positive obligation under Article 5(1) to protect him. (3) The judge did not resile from his previous judgment that D's parents could consent to his confinement in hospital when he was under 16.

Related judgments

ICLR

The ICLR have kindly agreed for their WLR (D) case report to be reproduced below.

Text:ICLR Birmingham City Council v D [2016] EWCOP 8, [2016] MHLO 5

External links

...

ICLR

Browne Jacobson, 'Money no object! Deprivation of liberty for 16/17 year olds, (bottomless?) resources and (endless?) state imputability' (29/1/16)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Related judgments==
 {{related judgments|Re D (A Child: deprivation of liberty) (2015) EWHC 922 (Fam), (2015) MHLO 33}}
+==ICLR==
+{{ICLR|Birmingham City Council v D (2016) EWCOP 8, (2016) MHLO 5}}
 ==External links==
 {{bailii|(2016) EWCOP 8}}
+[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?docID=WLRD2016-143 ICLR]
 {{link|https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2016/01/money-no-object-deprivation-of-liberty-for-16-17-year-olds-bottomless-resources-and-endless-state-imputability|Browne Jacobson, 'Money no object! Deprivation of liberty for 16/17 year olds, (bottomless?) resources and (endless?) state imputability' (29/1/16)|s}}